- 421
- 32
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
I don't think Nike has gotten the return they expected on that $90 million contract, that's all I was referring to on the sales side. Considering they've invested $90 million in the line, the return has not been what they hoped it would, that's all. They're not losing money by any means, but Lebron's been a bit of a "disappointment" behind closed doors. Kobe was at first as well, and he's hot right now coming off a championship, but his Nike success overall has been mediocre as well, just that he didn't have the contract that Lebron does (both signed in 2003 - Kobe $45 million over 5 years, Lebron $90 million over 7 years).Originally Posted by 3onPar5
I think sometimes we get to caught up in the Lebron line or Kobe line selling more than the other. I think thats because most of here in this discussion lived during the Golden Era of basketballs shoes. I doubt any line will sell as well as Jordan ever! So its unfair of us to comapre. I think NIKE is trying to think different, like with the Lebron line sure the actual Lebron VI maybe didnt sell as many pairs but add those sales with the soliders and the VI lows and ALL the SMU that the VI had and I bet you have a pretty good number. It also benefits NIKE to pair Kobe and Lebron in advertising because I dont think one man can sell like before.
Its also a little tougher to market a "big mans shoe" which is essentially what Lebron needs. I know my son loves his and they look great on his feet.
Lets not get on MenofOregon too much, let him voice his opinion. We have gone 5 good pages with good banter, lets keep that going. I think he was saying that NIKE had a dream team of sorts to lure Lebron in the first place and when it came time that UA could not match that firepower.
I wasn't getting on MofO, he's put up good stuff in the past and I like other things he's posted as well. I just don't think what he posted in this thread was warranted, given that UA wasn't even pushing footwear at all at the time he alluded to.